Where do you stand politically?

[kingukraine]

[WhiteSteve]

I don’t really get caught up in graphs and labels and all that. I just kind of know good and bad when I see it.

I think others would label me as liberal or progressive. But again, to me, I just think what I think when I think it about whatever I’m thinking about. There’s no party line I’m bound to, I just operate as I see fit from situation to situation.

I’d say my biggest thing is that I see the existence of government to be primarily for managing a decent, equal, and relatively comfortable society, more so than “running a business.” Universal decency and kindness to one another will always be the guiding light for me, not money, nor power, nor dominance, nor technological advancement. I have no desire nor do I think it’s productive to try to be the biggest swinging dick in the locker room. Any of this shit that boils down to an attitude of “bEiNg aLpHa” is fucking moronic fake posturing that reeks of obvious effort. I’m second-hand embarrassed for those folks.

And I’m not going turn around and claim myself to be a tough guy, but I’m just saying I don’t think I fit the soy boy profile at all if you look at my résumé. I don’t know, I just see a lot of American men looking like clowns thinking masculinity is about beards and tattoos and guns and pit bulls and pickup trucks and UFC. I don’t care about any of those things in a vacuum, necessarily. The more you try to present that image of yourself, the more insecure in your true self I consider you to likely be.

Like I see Mark Zuckerberg nowadays, talking some bullshit about “reclaiming masculinity” or something….. playboy, did you forget that you’re Mark Zuckerberg?😂 You can have all the money in the world, learn all the ju-jitsu you want….. you’re always gonna be a nerd. I’m sorry, that’s just your lane, guy🤷‍♂️

It’s like that guy who’s a pussy all through high school, then somewhere along the way after graduating he starts lifting weights, gets all yoked up. Then he goes to the ten year reunion thinking he looks badass, and it’s like “you’re too late, bro. That shit was cool when we were teenagers, but we’re grown now, we’re not fighting in the street anymore. Nobody cares if you’re tough, and you probably still aren’t, you just got in shape, which doesn’t make you a fighter if you aren’t organically”🤣🤣🤣

I just don’t understand it, this desperate effort to look like a big man, lmfao. I mean, I get it, all of us dudes have had it in us, but you’re supposed to outgrow it. Huge beards, but they’re man-babies inside, haha. I get into fights occasionally when I play hockey, but usually because someone else is on that dumb shit, and trying to posture. And even if I’m in the right and I’m just defending myself or a teammate, while I have an enjoyment of doing it, you still feel like an idiot for it afterwards, on some level.

Anyway, without going too far off on a tangent, I just say that to say that I think there’s an array of pervasive attitudes in our society that we should be striving to abandon, but the people we need to make changes in themselves are benefitting from not doing so, or in cases of anything without a benefit at stake, their bigotry is just not something they desire to overcome.

In a few words: America has a ton of really awful people, usually camouflaged under an often-selectively-offered redeeming quality or two, and they’re EXTREMELY comfortable and even proud of how awful they are. So it’s not like we’re dealing simply with misguided people with ultimately good intentions, it’s people who are deliberately and gleefully evil.

And I don’t quite know what to do about that, to be honest. Most of what I preach requires a personal desire to be a good person. But I can’t MAKE anyone want to be a good person. I’m truly shocked and disheartened to see what we’ve become as Americans, from a character standpoint.

Anyhow, I’d say one of my driving principles in a broad sense is that I never want to see our government and society either do the wrong things or NOT do the right things, when it comes to human social causes, for any reason that effectively boils down to “because money.” “Because money” can absolutely, positively NOT be our North Star.

And I don’t think it’s a binary thing, either we’re opulent and indecent or we’re destitute but harmonious, I think a balance is perfectly achievable even with decency being top priority. But yeah, if it came down to it, I’d rather live in a shack and drink from the same river I bathe in but remain kind and empathetic than the alternative. My decency is not for sale, even for personal survival.

Bottom line: don’t give people shit for who they are or how they like to live, as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone, and don’t mischaracterize anything to make it seem like it does just because you don’t like it for this, that, or the third reason. Don’t give women a hard time. Don’t give racial/ethnic minorities a hard time. Don’t give LGBTQ people a hard time. Don’t treat empathy like a foolish weakness. Don’t call anything communal that helps someone who might not be you “socialism” or “communism.” Don’t mischaracterize being asked to share what you’ve historically had as “oppression”, and don’t mischaracterize being asked to be accepting and respectful of all people as “having views shoved down your throat.” Recognize that you —not them— are the asshole.

I don’t know, I’m kind of all over the place on this one, my mind is in a million other places, sorry if this isn’t as cogent as I want it to be. But basically don’t be a dick and mind your own business, and understand that “freedom of religion” also means “freedom FROM religion”, if you should so choose, so there’s nothing persecutorial about disallowing forced Christianity/Christian standards & values on general society. Society first; money second-at-best.

In short, above all else, priority #1:

[14gurlz2gagonit]

You've already achieved master status, you don't have to work this hard. lolz.

I'm joking... I like the read.

[WhiteSteve]

@14gurlz2gagonit bruh, your name🤣🤣🤣

Lmfao, GAG Master status plus five bucks will get you coffee and a donut

[nightdrot]

"Conservative." However, I always, when I see this kind of question, have to put an asterisk over it. My conservatism is not what Americans typically call conservative. Because what Americans call conservative is, historically speaking, not conservatism but is, rather, classical liberalism.

My conservatism, which for convenience I will call classical or Tory conservatism, traces its intellectual pedigree through Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas - and probably most importantly - the 18th century British statesman and political philosopher, Edmund Burke, and also the British Prime Minsiters Benjamin Disraeli and Lord Salisbury.

In an American context, it shows up in the thinking of Alexander Hamilton and then - almost by historical accident, the American Whig Party, and the former Whig turned Republican, Abraham Lincoln. (It is a great historical "what if" as to what the GOP would have looked like had Lincoln lived and the radical Republicans not gained the ascendancy.)

Classical conservatives believe, unlike American conservatives and liberals, that the purpose of government is to answer Aristotle's first questions of politics, "How ought we to live? What kind of a people do we wish to be?"

To which classical conservatives respond that the purpose of government is to nurture civic virtue. To reinforce those habits and customs, legitimized by historical usage over time, that make a harmonious and stable social order possible.

Classical conservatives believe in the free market as a tool, rather than an end in itself. They recognize that it is a powerful wealth creator, efficient to some degree, and a guard against an overweening state. However, they believe, as Burke said, "The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do what they please. We ought see what it will please them to do before we risk congratulations."

Consequently, classical conservatives support an ameliorative welfare state. (The welfare state was invented by two conservatives - Disraeli and Bismarck.) The purpose such a welfare state being to reconcile the public to the dynamics of a free market economy by alleviating the negative impact of old age, illness and temporary unemployment.

In this they differ from American liberals who see the welfare state as a lever to engineer social transformation. That is, to restructure society according to some abstract a priori vision. Classical conservatives argue that such a vision is ultimately going to be oversimple and will lead to adverse and unintended consequences.

Tories believe that political philosophy should take as it starting point not human reason, but human nature. That political rights are developed through historical usage, and are not abstract pre-existing. Which is to say that they don't deny that such abstract rights exist. Merely that they are of no practical benefit or use in civil society and law. As Burke put it, "Their abstract perfection is their practical defect."

In all this, then, classical conservatives tend to see less difference between American conservatives and liberals than they see between themselves. Albeit that classical conservatives are more likely to align with their American counterparts insofar as American liberals tend to be more deeply hostile to custom and tradition.

[14gurlz2gagonit]

Educated. Most here are not going to know what you're talking about, but you earned a like out of me.

[nightdrot]

@14gurlz2gagonit Thank you. Much appreciated.

[Jebbekele124]

this vision is fraught with unresolved tensions. If political rights emerge from "historical usage", how can we distinguish legitimate traditions from those that perpetuate injustice? American slavery was also a "historical tradition".

The Aristotelian question "How shall we live?" presupposes a consensus on human ends that may no longer exist in modern pluralistic societies. Who determines these ends? And how can we prevent this approach from itself becoming a form of conservative social engineering?

**The problem of application

Tory conservatism works well as a critique of the excesses of progressivism and libertarianism, but its positive prescriptions remain vague. How does this political philosophy relate concretely to contemporary challenges - climate change, inequality, technology? The invocation of "human nature" risks masking substantive political choices under a veneer of natural necessity.

[nightdrot]

@Jebbekele124 It is a discipline that forces you to ask questions.

Climate change - to use one example - is a scientific, not a political problem. What classical conservatism asks is to what degree that problem must be addressed in law and how much in the culture. The law is a sledgehammer, while society, if it perceives climate change as a problem, will modify its conduct over time and adapt to the circumstances as it finds them.

Ditto technology.

Inequality is another and more directly political issue. The state adapts laws to fit with historical notions of justice, the rule of law, etc. The law habituates society to these notions over time.

When the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964, there was no consensus in large swathes of society as to what constituted justice and equality. However, as time progressed, the society became habituated to the law and while not perfectly - there is no perfection in this mortal veil of tears - the mandates of the Civil Rights Act became, in effect, habit and custom.

May I recommend to you a book? George Will's "Statecraft as Soulcraft" addresses these questions It would be worth picking up if this topic interests you. It is not an easy read, but it is useful.

[Jebbekele124]

First, temporality: how long can we wait for society to "organically adapt"? Is the spontaneous social response always quick or effective enough?

Secondly, the paradox of intervention: if civil rights legislation was necessary to create new social habits, doesn't this contradict the preference for organic cultural evolution? This suggests that sometimes, the legal "hammer" is essential to break deeply-rooted unjust customs...

More fundamentally, who determines when legal intervention is justified?

Thanks for Will's recommendation - his thoughts on the formative role of political institutions would certainly enrich this discussion.

[nightdrot]

@Jebbekele124 To take your last point, first, the culture, politics and legal system determine when intervention is justified. The society shapes the law and the law shapes society. It is an interactive and ongoing process. It is called democracy.

Ditto. The Civil Rights Act, to take your second point, makes my point. As the need for greater civil equality came to be recognized, the law was passed. The law then reinforced the habits of civil equality and normalized them within society. Such that the kinds of derogatory remarks that were made about African-Americans at the time Civil Rights Act was passed have become, over time, socially unacceptable. (Think of the "N" word, for example.) The law encoded, formalized and reinforced a gradually gestating ethic.

To your first point on global warming, nope, man is imperfect. The process of adaptation will not always meet a scientifically rigorous standard. That said, in society, fear often does the work of reason and if a gradually rising fear of global warming motivates the culture, the law and regulations will - as they already have to some extent - change accordingly.

Anyhow, I highly recommend the Will book. He articulates all this far better than I. Hope it helps.

[alice55]

I took the test and it gave me Authoritarian right, don't surprise me it's the ways I was raised so xD

Which one is yours?

[4ngelic]

[DrPepper12]

Moderation is SOOOOO underrated in these times!!!

[kingukraine]

based

[14gurlz2gagonit]

The last quadrant political test I took was -3,-3. Slightly liberal and slightly libertarian. I'm a heavy Trump supporter though before you start thinking I'm woke. It's not like I think the man is the God emperor or perfect, but what he's pushing is really in line with what I push... which is just logical and economical in my books. Being too liberal makes you an economic retard and being too libertarian makes you too laissez-faire... so I have beef with my own obviously because I'm simply an individual and that is my right to be that way despite what authoritarians think... they can go suck a bag of dicks.

I believe most of the woke-tards are indeed liberal af as well as authoritarian af like Hitler as well as Stalin. My non-republican sentiments tend to come out when you ask about abortion or something that tends to get most of it's helping hand from religion. Meanwhile, I view woke as a religion that's also trying to tell us how to be and what to think and obviously the libertarian in me views that as a step too far.

Most that know me on this site would probably think I'm far right, unless they really know me. I love to pretend I'm Jewish or black just to fuck with people that have the racial and creed hangups. The united federation of trolls is where I might hold most of my allegiance.

[ProbablyClueless]

At this point, I'm conservative and libertarian. I spent most of my life decidedly left and libertarian.

Watching the way the left (as a general population) has behaved last 8-9 years really changed my perspective. I think I was deeply turned off by the complete lack of critical thought I was seeing from people I would have considered to be in the intellectual class. I don't appreciate braindead appeals to authority. And I think I was also deeply disturbed by the way that left wing politicians would create the exact problems that they would run campaigns to get reelected to solve. It's worth mentioning that this is an authoritarian thing, not left vs right.

[DrPepper12]

Poor message or messaging? Just curious

[ProbablyClueless]

@DrPepper12 For me the problem became the message itself. Basically I started to realize that the people I was trying to help were actually being harmed by the solutions being pushed.

It wasn't a question of people with good intentions taking things too far. It was people in power purposefully lying to their constituents about their policies so they could profit off the institutional dependence of marginalized groups.

[14gurlz2gagonit]

Same here... After Obama's second term I already felt like they fucked up, but might make it right... and then they ran Hillary of all people. I was tired of it all the way back then. I didn't vote because I thought it was rigged for Hill dog, and I wasn't a fan of that... then magic happened. How the left has behaved since 2016 cemented my walking away process. They went after the votes that usually didn't vote at all and left the logic somewhere in the dust. I'm so sick of them accusing others of exactly what they're doing like they won't get found out and the empty promises. It's weird because I hated the right for the longest, but now I hate most of the left with these absurd ideologies... and basically feel like Trump is what they fucking deserve.

[ProbablyClueless]

@14gurlz2gagonit Very well said! The hypocritical accusations make my blood boil. And the most annoying part is that their constituents basically can't be bothered to look into anything, so they buy the party line and think that conservative "whataboutism" is not having a cohesive message.

They're the ones without a cohesive message.

[DrPepper12]

The USA America knowledge of authentic political spectrums is SO WRONG & MISUNDERSTOOD that they should be banned from commenting.

Dems are center right on any meaningful discussions

[14gurlz2gagonit]

I'm not saying anything for or against your statement... I'm just going to say if you don't know what the Overton window is, read a Wikipedia article on it.

I say this because you usually do battle for the left on this site, and the meme you're using here is usually used by the right to show where the left's brain is at as an insult. Like I get what you're trying to say, but any rightoid reading this is going to be like "Ha ha, exactly what they think" and feel like they just owned you. Figured it's best I say it before one of them say it.

[DrPepper12]

I actually read that book! GREAT examples of all kinds of shifts!!

TY for that observation too. Memes and drones - the new tank & bomber

[kingukraine]

not on social policy

[BCRanger10]

😆😆😆 Right, yeah. The Republicans have gone so, so, so, so, SO far to the right that they're now rallying behind no less than four former Democrats and a Republican who, according to some observers and pundits, sounds a lot like a 1980s Democrat.

And are now more accepting of abortion.

And gay marriage (and homosexuality in general).

And whose 2024 party platform mentioned God by name a whopping TWO TIMES, as compared to 16 on their 2016 platform.

Yeah, such scary far-right theofascists, we are 🙄

[14gurlz2gagonit]

@BCRanger10 Good points you made. I mean... Early 1990's republicans would look at current republicans as the left.

[BCRanger10]

Here's where I landed this last time (I've taken it a few times over the years).

I don't know how much I trust this test though. I don't like the way some of these questions are phrased; I think I took it once a few years ago and landed dead center.

[Static_In_The_Attic]

As for the chart in your photo I don’t stand in it, I stand away from it in my own little world. I think outside the box.

[14gurlz2gagonit]

The left-right dichotomy just represents how you are on economics. Further left you are... you are more likely to throw money at it or anything else... literally the person that will give a handout to a drug addict even though they show no interest on using it to buy food instead of drugs.

I didn't read your argument/talk with anyone else, so please don't think I'm speaking on whatever is going on there... just responding directly to what your answer was. You seem to have a grasp on the Up and down part, so I won't say shit about that even though I think authoritarians are shit people that get people dead much quicker than the rest.

[Kaneki05]

Probably directly on the line to the left, I love Marx so for sure got Authoritaran in me but I also want many freedoms so... Lib

[David318578]

Marxism and freedom do not go hand in hand so thats a bit of an oddity.

[Kaneki05]

Not true at all. Marxism opposes some freedom like in being rich, and some other issues. Marxism it's self was for liberation of labour, and supported women's right to vote, for no racial discrimination, no child labour, and to turn away from monarchy and capitalism for a socialist world.
We're the people are important despite their class, rather than treat as lower class citizens.

All that is very freeing, and even conservatives today agree that a lot of these would be positive changes.
Though they do still love capitalism somehow.

[David318578]

Marxism does not work with freedom, it has to be forced by removing freedoms. It's why every country that has implemented socialism or communism has been a collosal failure with nobody being free and millions starving and dead.

[Kaneki05]

@David318578 Ah another person who knows nothing about Marxism and is talking about countries that didn't do it right and implemented their own warped view of it.
I go by the actual words of Marx and how it spoke against Uk's awful victiorian times, go and read his actual views and you'll agree with them.
Unless your someone who really loves Child Labour, Sexism, Racism and Class disparity.

[David318578]

No what you go by is whats called fantasy. What I'm talking about is reality. Marxism + human nature = historical examples of the failures of communisms and socialism.

The modern day Marxist that have never owned a business, payed taxes or even held down a job other then making coffee at starbucks but someone has all the answers for a global economy is nothing short of hubris

[Kaneki05]

@David318578 So reality is if something failed in the past due to people doing something wrong it should never be tried ever again.
Glad so many scientists and great people never thought like you.

If we thought like you we would be still stuck far in the past saying let's not change anything just in case it goes wrong ah scary...

[David318578]

It's been tried multiple times and every time it degrades into a total failure. It has a 100% failure rate that leads to millions of deaths.

Change is fine, but when you have millions of dead people on your hands due to a philosophy that is incapable with human nature. Implementing that philosophy again is the definition of insanity

[Kaneki05]

@David318578 Nope it hasn't been a 100% failure otherwise explain what national healthcare is? What women's rights to vote is? People of color rights?
Labour laws becoming more fairer and safer?
Guess these in your mind are all fails somehow

And when speak of people dying to it... Do you mean stalin doing his own thing? Because funnily enough that wasn't Marxism that was Stalinism...
And if you think they are both the same thing, then you are beyond help. As no way was Stalin following Marxism correctly, he was for sure doing his own thing. Same for the rest of the dictators funnily enough dictators don't really care about following rules except their own.

[David318578]

@Kaneki05 yes it is a 100% failure rate.. pointing out how some socialist programs function because they are funded by a capitalist society is not an example for success. Fact is when socialism or communism are implemented it always fails, you know this otherwise you would point to the Marxist utopia, there is no utopia, because it doesn't work, never has and never will.

[Kaneki05]

@David318578 So because it don't exist yet means it can't never? What a great logic!
Again I repeat I am glad scientists and great people don't think like you.

Well we tried to fly but ya know didn't work too good, guy died turned out it couldn't hold his weight and flapping his arms was a bad idea anyway. Let's just give up on this is idea, queue the world without planes...

[Kaneki05]

Also the progressive views we got from Marx and others are present today in our society right now... If it wasn't for them who know what we would look like today.
So I do call that success you can try deny it if you want.
But without such activists no progress would be made and that's a fact. Simples.

[David318578]

Your analogy is very flawed, what you want to do is go back to the early days of flight where people where flapping their arms and died like crazy in favor of a modern aircraft. Should we also go back to shock therapy, blood letting or giving people a lobotomy?
Giving someone shock therapy doesn't work, that was a failure in medical science, just like Marxism is a failure and wanting to go back to an archaic failure is insanity.

[Kaneki05]

@David318578 When you missed my point entierly, When did I ever suggest going back?
If anything it's about going into the future, you maybe shocked by this but conservative views are the ones who want to go back. It has it in the name conservative vs progressive.

It's absurd to think Marxism has ever truly been tried when only dictators with their own goals pretended to be doing it.
That's the saddest part we've never actually tried.

[David318578]

Marxism is going back, the communist manifesto was written in 1848.. shock therapy is more modern.

You saying that Marxism has never been tried is a lie, it has been tried and because of human nature it leads to dictators and failure..
The reality of Marxism is millions and millions of dead people. That's your track record.. insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.

[Kaneki05]

@David318578 Do you not understand context? Marxism is completely new compared to capatislism.
You have to be the one person in the world who is seriously trying to aruge that Marxism within it's self is a conservative ideal coming from the past? That's a new one lol

Everyone else would agree Marxism was a progressive movement made aganist long standing capatislism and monarchy.

My whole point is, those dictators are the same to the dudes who tried to fly with their arms... Did not work.
And we still haven't got to planes yet so no it hasn't been tried yet.
Currently we in very inbetween stage of wanting to fly and sorta getting but not there yet. So no it's the future not the past.

If you don't get my point here, don't bother to reply because I am going to repeat this point as undoubtedly again you wrongfully think that somehow dictators repsent Marxism when no they didn't.
They represented their own agenda clear and simple.

[David318578]

@Kaneki05 I get your point, its the same point that every socialist makes. "that wasn't true socialism" when looking at the historical failures of Marxism. The problem is that the same can be said for capitalism. Every example of capitalism is not "true" capitalism so all the flaws that are with capitalism I can wave away and say thats not "pure" capitalism.

here is the problem with both of our arguments, we will never get a "pure" capitalism or socialism because once you add in the human element into the mix, that "pure" version will never happen. Humans are very flawed, we can be greedy and immoral and down right evil.

When you add in the human element into capitalism you get massive economic growth and prosperity, and yes you get greedy corporations run by immoral CEOs as the downside. But when you add in the human element into socialism that immoral CEO is now your dictator with way more power then he had as a CEO. socialism will always have that guy flapping his arms trying to fly, its human nature

[Kaneki05]

@David318578 Even if it's true there will be no pure version of it, does that mean I can't support that side more than than the other?
And in a good socialist future such immoral people would be jailed thus stopping it or at least minimumising it to the best one can, always going to be bad guys.

I think you seem to think that I am asking for everything to be perfect. Obviously there is no such thing as perfect.
But that does not mean one shouldn't strive for socialist views they agree with, and making a Marxist future to the best we can.

And whether it works or not it does not change my mind on my morals, or what I want to see change in this world.

[David318578]

@Kaneki05 The immoral people wouldn't be jailed they would be the people running things, they would be your leaders that turn into dictators. just like what has happened every single time..

But yes You are free to support whatever side you want, in fact there is nothing stopping you from creating a mini socialist utopia right now. You dont need to convert the whole US, go and get all your fellow socialists together and create a mini utopia. The bonus with this is because there is still the US government it will stop your fellow commies from committing genocide against each other. There is nothing stopping you all from pooling together all your hard earned $$ (under capitalism) and buying a shit ton of land and creating your utopian dream.

[Kaneki05]

@David318578 Your deulsional to not think the immoral people are running things right now, and yes they would be jailed because their would be much strict laws on wealth, unlike there is now.

But clearly your not a very creative person and can't see anything beyond what's now. Which again I repeat I am so happy scienctists and great people don't think like you.

[David318578]

Of course there are immortal people running things now.. they are the CEOs that you hate so much. So give them more power seems stupid don't you think?

Again what's stopping you from doing your socialist utopia on a small scale? There are plenty of you in the US so go live your best socialist life.

[Kaneki05]

@David318578 The fact you think Marxism gives them more power? Shows you don't even know what we are talking about here lol

by the way I am just ignoring your pointless question, as you know that's dumb and it's a pointless front for a point.

[David318578]

It's not a dumb question, there is absolutely nothing from stopping you and your fellow socialists from living together in your utopia. The Amish live in an alternative lifestyle just fine. So why don't you?

[Kaneki05]

@David318578 How does that help labour and create a better standard of living? Ya know the whole think Marxism is about? And ya know you need to own land for that and money funnily enough, and Government are still going to come after tax somehow.
Really dumb there is many reasons why this don't work and makes no sense.
Marx didn't want a Cult he wanted better standard of living across the board which actually is happening, and if he could see today he would know it's vastly better than his time, but there is always room for improvement if you disagree that seems like you issue.

And typically I'm the cynical one or nilistic lol

[David318578]

How does it help labor and create a better standard of living? It doesn't, it never will, that is kind of my point.

But you live in a free society so if you want to live like the Amish then go for it. Or if you want to create a socialist society then go for it. Nobody is stopping you from getting all your socialist comrades together and living together and creating the socialist utopia.

Yes it will cost $$ to buy land, so what. Pool all your resources together and show the world how great your ideas are.

Of course you will never do that, because you would have to put your own $$ into the endeavor, and just like all the socialist out there, you want to use other people's $$ so you can do the min and still receive the maximum.

[Kaneki05]

@David318578 What do you mean how it helps labour... Once again you prove you don't know what Marxism is. The whole point of it is prove Labour if you don't know that go do some research.
'The more the division of labor and the application of machinery extend, the more does competition extend among the workers, the more do their wages shrink together.'
Marx said this before AI of course, and I think you'll find AI is only going to prove him more right.

Nope just explained why it's dumb not repeating myself.

And how did it create a better standard of living? Are you even reading what I put?
Ya know removal of child labour? Women's rights? No racism? Better heath regulations in workspaces and safety? Better healthcare for all?
What do you even mean how does it improve standards of living... Again it's the whole point.

[David318578]

You asked how it would help labor not me. I answered it that it won't. It doesn't matter if it's a full scale country or a small scale town. Socialism will fail and not help anything. The world knows this, history has proven Marxism fails every time.

Now you obviously don't believe that, so again why not prove to the world your Marxist ideas work?

There is nothing stopping you from creating a small scale socialist town, other then the fact that deep down you know it will fail.

[Kaneki05]

@David318578 It already has helped smh today is way more progressive than Victorian era and that's was thanks to a lot of Marx ideals but you can keep pretending that somehow this didn't happen and that time back then was better somehow?

[Kaneki05]

@David318578 also I didn't ask that rhetorical hence why after I said 'Ya know the whole thing Marxism is about' so you didn't understand my words here.

Which seems to be your problem, as literally all your doing is making me repeat myself and not getting it smh.

[David318578]

You saying Marxism has "already helped" is funny. That would be like saying Hitler had some good ideas like modernizing his railroad, so therefore we should all be NAZI!

Also I know you didn't answer a retorcal question, you where looking for an answer and I gave it.

It all boils down to the world knows Marxism is a total failure, and your fellow Marxists refuse to prove them wrong, the funny thing is the reason you refuse to prove them wrong is the reason that it fails.

[David318578]

*ask a retorcal question

[Kaneki05]

@David318578 it was rhetorical I am pretty sure I know what I was saying and why I made such point more than you do. Unless you can read my mind.
You simply refused to see how it was rhetorical, like one of those idiots who don't get it when I say something clearly sarcastic, but they don't get it.

I didn't ask you and I told you multiple times now how it has helped already.
So go away and stop making me repeat myself.

[David318578]

I don't think you do know what you are saying, you said before..

"also I didn't ask that rhetorical hence why after I said 'Ya know the whole thing Marxism is about"

So you didn't ask that rhetorical but now you changed your mind to saying it was rhetorical?

Regardless on your rhetorical/not rhetorical question.

The fact remains that the reason that socialism fails every time is the same reason you refuse to prove to the world that it works.

[Kaneki05]

@David318578 Sorry forgot the was*

Sighs thought you had finally left but nope once again you respond with the same shit.
Revert to all my answers back to you not repeating myself anymore, you should already know by now why I disagree with your point.

[David318578]

I keep responding with the same shit for a very specific reason, and it's to illustrate the failures of socialism.

I challenged you to group all the socialists together and create your socialists utopia. There are several hundred thousand socialists in the US. That's about the population of salt lake City. You all cound easily group together and pool your money and create a socialist city. But you don't.

The reason why every single socialist refused to even entertain that idea is why socialism fails.. because non of you are willing to put any skin in the game and work hard for your dreams and take on the consequences of failure.
Socialism caters to the lazy and min effort of society, they want to do the minimum and still get equal shares of those who work hard and risk everything for their dreams.

Human nature forces socialism to fail, most Humans are in the do the min category, but some of us are in the do whatever it takes to create something, risk everything, has the motivation and drive to succeed at any cost.

Those people stop doing what they do best under socialism, they realize all the hard work does not do anything to help them out in life when all their hard work goes to prop up the lazy.. so they stop working hard. They stop trying new ideas or trying to create something. They just go and do the min..

Capitalism allows those crazy driven people to create awesome new businesses and products because they can reap the benefits of their ideas, high risk= high reward under capitalism.

High risk= no reward under socialism. What has socialism ever created? Now look at the advancements under capitalism.

Marxism doesn't take into account human nature.. it will always fail, and you refusing to prove the world wrong is proof of why it fails

[Kaneki05]

@David318578 Again refer to what I've already said to you. You keep saying the same point which I've already answered, if you don't like my answer tough. I ain't changing my mind no matter how much you babble about something I already explained why that's dumb.

[David318578]

What you said was to ignore it over and over, then finally gave an answer that you can't do it because you would have to buy land, and then pay tax.

So you need someone else to buy the land and pay the tax all so you can keep the benefits without doing anything to earn those benefits. Your excuses prove my point.
Socialism fails every time because it caters to the lazy and punishes the ambitious.

[Kaneki05]

@David318578 Nope it just proves it's not possible because others won't allow it...
And again I repeat one last time, that's a cult is not what socialism is nor helps labour or standard of living across society which is the main goals of it.
So it would be pointless anyway.

How many times do I have to say this? Smh

[David318578]

What are you talking about with a cult? I'm talking about getting all of the socialists together to pool your money and create a socialist town, where all your laws are socialist based. That's not a cult that's what you are fighting for but just on a smaller scale with just local laws rather then the whole US.

Nobody is going to stop you other then the fact that you are a socialist and don't want to put in your time and $$. Like all good socialists you want to use other people time and money..
There is a reason socialism and communism have a 100% failure rate..

[Kaneki05]

@David318578 That's a Cult, and ya know the people who tried were funnily enough cult leaders for a reason.

Also you can't just create local laws from nowhere, otherwise by your logic druggies should just do this and have a drug town then it can be legal and fine.
If that was the case this would exist and hard drugs would be legal in such places.

No government allows you to do that, the government would literally stop you.
This is some fantasy bs idea you've come up with thinking you have a point and telling me I live in a fantasy how ironic.

And again this has no impact on labour or better standard of living or anything it would accomplish nothing other than a cult.
It's maddening how you can't see this.

[David318578]

Correct it wouldn't have a positive impact on labour or a better standard of living because socialism fails 100% of the time.

But that doesn't stop you from implementing your socialist laws if your town is a socialist government that runs the town. All your labour would operate under your socialist ideas.

You refuse to even entertain the idea because you are a socialist and need other people to do all the work for you.

[Kaneki05]

@David318578 I just told you why the idea won't work. And no why it wouldn't is because a cult so small wouldn't impact the overall government of the land.
At this point you can't read or a troll which one is it?

[David318578]

No you made up a bunch of nonsense excuses.

If I decided to organize all your fellow socialists and we bought a huge portion of land and created Utopiaville and we had socialist healthcare, and every business was a socialist business, every law was a socialist law.
There would be hundreds of thousands of socialists all living in Utopiaville, you wouldn't move there to live and work under a socialist government?

[Kaneki05]

@David318578 Again refer to my last points. At this point I am just going to block you, cause you keep repeating something I've answered over 30 times now.

[DonaldDarko]

As far as I can tell, all over the map. I'm a strong believer in transhumanism, abortion rights, equality of race and sex. I'm a strong believer in homogeneous societies as well. Diversity is a weakness.

[Spencer10]

Slightly left of center... but it fluctuates. Mostly I stay away from the fringes.

[Hussar]

I'm considered a right winger and would apply the label to myself but this test always puts me in the red quadrant. I do skew left on the economy in some cases

[MisterWack]

I would say I’m Progressive Left, though I used to be Conservative Right.

Authoritarian and Libertarian aren’t something I subscribe to.

[FreyaRed]

I land in center, however generally I'm socialist but in some specific questions about illegal immigration, I'm a nationalist.

[Lliam]

I fall quite far into the lower left corner - left-libertarian, which is also called "Libertarian socialism".

[Maybe_Maybe_not]

In the cloud, on average

[exitseven]

I used to be I dependent but the democrats are so crazy I had to choose a side. I consider myself a Republican

[14gurlz2gagonit]

You should take the quadrant test and find out. You and I usually agree on all things political (You know me, you just don't know you know me... or maybe you do from my writing style), so I'm curious what your score would be. Mine was -3,-3. I'm curious just how much that sore would be alike. My wife was just as liberal as me, but she's more authoritarian. Which is weird because what I say usually goes, but maybe that's because I'm the more logical one.

[exitseven]

@14gurlz2gagonit do you have a link to that?

[14gurlz2gagonit]

https://www.political-coordinates.org/test_en.html

[Alex-Snow]

I am registered as an independent, but I tend to lean left due to the idiot in the White House

[14gurlz2gagonit]

I'm guessing either a reaction to him rather than understanding the method to the chaos? I'm independent or non-partisan and slightly to the left (I took that quadrant test) and I'm on his side. He's not authoritarian because he's currently tearing them down which is why I might guess you're authoritarian. You should take the quadrant test and let us know... I'm curious where you are on it.

[Bricealan]

@kingukraine Socially liberal, fiscally conservative

[Dongie]

Where common sense reigns supreme and sense of virtue is not paraded around for corrupt democrats to applaud.

[14gurlz2gagonit]

"Where common sense reigns supreme" is where I always find myself on the same side as you on every issue we've found on this site thus far.

[Dongie]

Yeah, I've seen you chime in. I always appreciated that.

[SolitarySolace]

Wherever misogynists are located, that’s where I am

[LazerBean]

So extremely liberal, what a surprise

[SolitarySolace]

I think liberals would disagree

[14gurlz2gagonit]

Lolz... bruah. I'm right there with you then.

[Anonymous]

Once I took a test and just like I knew I lean towards the left and I always will.

[14gurlz2gagonit]

You leaned left... where were on on the up and down part? Libertarian or authoritarian? Let people do what they want or more follow the rules?

[AngryCarl2]

Next to Bernie Sanders. In principle I mean, since I'm not American.

[DryGermanGuy]

Independent / centrist, always have been.

[NicholasRedone]

Left wing big welfare state, government

[andreasderjuengere]

I stand somewhere in the yellow zone.

[Dargil]

I'm against Democrats.

[douride2]

Some days I think I stand all alone.

[DrPepper12]

Only Godsmack does that!!!

[douride2]

@DrPepper12 ?

[Anonymous]

I don't know i'm just a republican.

[beefcakebradybatson]

Democratic Socialist.

[In_Trance]

Fuck the government
Both sides

[Anonymous]

Definitely not Democrat.

[BarryLiverstone]

Lean right

[seeyounexttuesday]

Libertarian Right